Only the least worst.

They get arrested. Really, they do. I represented a guy trying to buy a gun from one of the shops on 69th Street. They ran the background checks on him, then called the police. He was arrested on the spot. This was last year in 2006.

and I think my ideas on the 2d amendment are (1) academic and law school-y and (2) kind of inconsistent and (3) relatively uninformed. I generally think that our system has become totally detached from democracy in any meaningful sense of the word despite the existence of ALL the encoded rights, though I'd say that historically you can chart some of those rights as having helped more than others, and I do think that speech as well as other protections for political expression have the potential, and in the last 100 years have, aided political change and individual rights. I don't think guns have or can any more.

We both disagree about whether access to guns is valuable on its own terms, or based on the fact of its being drafted into the Constitution's text.

Generally, though, I think that the Constitution as drafted provided a workable model for a political system in some ways, but contained specific provisions that needed to be excised and other, broader, provisions that need to be rethought. Amendments have been added and taken away. In general, I lean towards fear of pure majority decision-making and do want to make sure we preserve the aspects of the system that check that. But change must be possible based on a radically restructured society. I admit that I have little to say to your point that rights should expand, rather than contract. But the Constitution after the Civil War was radically different than before it, and I think our thinking on the Consitution hasn't really caught up to the hugely changed political relations between the states and the federal government, or between the citizens and those who govern them.

I do think we have much bigger problems to address. I will chill and focus if Mark agrees to not continue to provoke me with ridiculous statements and lies.

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

I have differences with you, does that make me not a progressive?

I disagree with your actions. Your bilking of tax payers and then playing prarie dog when you are called on it.

Let's put it like this, my stance on guns is very simple. I believe that Pennsylvanians have a right to own firearms. I believe the State may place reasonable restrictions on that ownership. Ownership may not be banned, however.

Thus, I believe convicted felons shouldn't own guns. Those with mental deficienies shouldn't own guns. Children shouldn't own guns. Those pending trial on felony charge shouldn't own guns. Straw purchasing, which most experts agree is the real problem here, must be dealt with severely.

I believe these are reasonable restrictions on hand gun ownership:

Reporting lost or stolen guns;
Registering private sales of firearms;
One handgun a month;
Waiting periods; and
More extensive background checking.

I believe Philadelphia should be given the ability for impose further regulations related to firearms, provided that an outright ban or anything like that is illegal.

If you think I simply disagree with the NRA, you're wrong. I'm just the only person on this site who happen to disagree with my fellow progressives on this issue. I just happen to think that rights should never be diminished. Period. I'm in favor of expansion, but never reduction.

But, we're all in agreement in saying that you're pig-headed and it is impossible for you not to understand you take advantage of the tax payers every flight to take to Harrisburg, with your excessive PSAs and your extensive book collection. Please, take your head out of the clouds. It is umbecoming for a seasoned state legislature to go after a bright, energetic and committed citizen with nothing more than a bad argument, name calling and toddler tactics.

If you are so committed to Philadelphians, change YOUR behavior and show us that you are not a "shill" (used as you use it) for your own self interest.

I win. You lose.

P.S. Folks, when reading Rep. Cohen's statements, consider these items:

Is Stu Bykofsky a right wing journalist?
Are these journalist reporting on facts?
The train ride to Philly from Harrisburg is 2 hours?
Aren't libraries free?

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

I need to call you accountable on the following statement

After all, the constitution says that citizens have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.

Looks like you're coming down on one side of the "well regulated militia" fence there as opposed to the other.

Part of my minion interview process always involves asking questions about interpreting the 2nd amendment. Now, I know that you don't think that it's immoral of me to want to legally bar my two year-old neighbor from carrying around a bazooka (as a certain unnamed persona non grata apparently believes), but your comment above does suggest to me that you think that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect his mother's right to carry around a 9mm.

I don't know exactly how you slipped through the screening process (heads will roll...), but if you want to continue in my employ, you will need to clarify your viewpoint on this issue: What do you think (to borrow Gaetano's term) is "reasonable" regulation of an individual's right to bear arms in "self defense?"

Gaetano laid out what he thinks reasonable state/municipal regulation of guns would be. What do you think would be acceptable regulation of gun sales, manufacture, or ownership?

I will address this question at the end; first let me establish my views on the greater question . . .

I'm asking partly from curiosity and partly because from the way you keep dropping the constitution trump card, it's not clear whether the state can limit or regulate the ownership of ANY weapon -- except maybe for felons.

Of course some legislative controls are permissible.  No right is absolute and I'm not arguing for an absolutist interpretation of either the federal Am. II or PA Art I, §21. Such controls must be enacted in conformity to the principles of the Constitution which may not always easily discernible from the plain text, especially when those words have undergone changes because of shifts in modern lexicon or "enlightenment," and that new definition is substituted for the word's meaning when those constitutions were written.  Such misconstructions were a concern for the framers:

• "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed . . .  Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449-450

In a simple statement I could say my resistance is based on the modern concept of "regulation" which has been reconstructed into a hydra-headed scheme of rights restriction and/or deprivation.  I also condemn the modern practice of not just ignoring, but the systematic denial of alternate definitions (although obsolete now) of words commonly used in the Colonial period.  The primary example is, "well regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment; the modern definition apparently is - strangled by laws creating a myriad of qualifications and justifications.  The true meaning for the term as used in the 2nd to describe militia is properly functioning or in operational order and condition.

If I wanted to deter King George with a thermonuclear weapon, and I had the scratch and the storage space to do it, it's hard to see how the state of Pennsylvania by your logic could have any authority to do anything about it.

I can say that there is good evidence that the principles upon which the federal Constitution stands does permit the prohibition of the personal possession of a nuclear bomb or any other indiscriminate weapon. I would be comfortable
with a simple determination that the ownership and use of indiscriminate weapons is reserved for the war-making powers of Congress and the President. The states are shut out of the warmaking powers entirely, the field has been preempted by the federal Constitution, forbidding them to have troops or a navy (and what goes with them) of their own.

Also, the fact that the private ownership and use of the most fearsome and destructive weapon of the day was directly addressed in the Constitution and one could only be privately maintained or used under the express permission of Congress (Art 1, §8, cl. 11) could be competently argued to direct the controls that could be legitimately implemented on modern indiscriminate weapons. I would doubt the 2nd Amendment could be appealed to because of the plain understanding of the extent of an individual's duty to the government and hence, what weapons are protected by the federal 2nd Amendment (and PA's Art I, §21).

More to come . . .

And then, please explain the philosophical justification for where you draw
the line.

The philosophical justification is found in the principles of the classical militia concept and the esteem the founding fathers held for an armed citizenry.  An armed citizenry is an inseparable component of our form of government (federal and state) and that condition is understood to be included in the federal Constitution's promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government (see Presser v Illinois).  The only in-depth inspection of that ideal and how it impacts the law making ability of Congress is a 1939 SCOTUS decision titled US v Miller.

That case only focused on the weapon, not the man owing the weapon.  The weapon was a sawed-off shotgun (having a barrel less than 18" in length) owned without the required tax stamp affixed in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (creating a tax structure for fully automatic weapons (machine guns) sawed-off shotguns, silencers and other "destructive devices.")  There was no appearance at SCOTUS review for the appellees (Miller) to brief or argue any position regarding Miller or his gun so the Court only read the federal government's briefs and only heard the US Attorney's arguments.

In the end, the possession of the gun was found to not have any 2nd Amendment protection because no evidence was heard stating the gun is of the type that is usually employed in civilized warfare or that constitute the ordinary military equipment.  Because of that, it was decided it was of no use to militia and thus not immune from federal oversight.  (Remember, NFA-34 is not a ban on machine guns or sawed-off shotguns; you just need the $200 tax stamp to own one, and Miller didn't have the stamp)

By that reasoning the only weapons protected by the 2nd (and thus immune from federal oversight / control) are those usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.  This unavoidable conclusion / interpretation (see Cases v US) makes some people very uncomfortable so a multitude of reasons to NOT follow Miller's rule have been invented in the lower federal appeals court system.

Before you go to any gun control site to get their propaganda, please read the case that the Miller Court acknowledges established its reasoning . . . Aymette v State at page 158.

• "The object, then, for which the right of keeping, and bearing arms is secured is of the public.  The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to
  maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution. The words "bear arms, too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress.  As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin.  These weapons would be useless in war.  They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them is not, therefore, secured by the constitution."

Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)

The Miller Court does offer their exposition on the object of the 2nd Amendment in its decision but many lower federal court opinions have taken Miller's simple explanation of the object for the Amendment, (why the "declaration and guarantee" was written), and applied it to the means to achieve the object, the pre-existing right, thereby secured.  This is an untenable (and dangerous) position; it is clear that rights are not created or granted by the provisions securing them and that they exist without any specific appeal to the amendment (which only recognizes and secures the right). This is a maxim that applies to all the Bill of Rights and it is repeated often by SCOTUS (internal quotes and citations removed in some).

• "The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ."  VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
  
   
• "The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)
  
   
• The right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. " -- U S v. CRUIKSHANK 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
  
   
• "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK,
  143 U.S. 517 (1892)
  
   
• The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
  
   
• "[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." --  DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL
  OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)

As Alan Dershowitz said:

• "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture.  They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

That about sums it up

After all, the constitution says that citizens have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state. There's nothing in there in the plain English language excluding felons, or parolees, or people who are mentally ill.

The procedures of the criminal code; federal, state and local, enacted under the legitimate powers of a constitution address infractions of the social order under accepted practices of due process. The criminal use of a protected firearm or the specific penalty outcomes of that crime after due process are not issues for any Bill of Rights to allow or disallow other than those provisions specifically addressing abuse of due process; c&u punishments, habeas corpus, warrants, jury trials, coerced confession, etc. Mental incompetents and criminals have always had many rights legally "disabled." A felon holding public office, being employed in the public trust, (bank, union official) voting (in some cases) and owning a firearm are all violations of law.

Me arguing for adherence to the 2nd Amendment and the PA constitution in no way is arguing against lifting those restrictions that date back to our legal ancestor, English common law.

The real issue is what kind of laws constitute your side's "reasonable" and "common sense" restrictions (like the laundry list that constitute Brady's report card which I will address in short order). 

Legitimate laws are written and enforced regarding threatening, assault or murder with a firearm just as laws are written and enforced regarding other crimes i.e., child pornography. Here's where the train goes off the rails; no one is advocating the blanket restriction of the access or use of digital imaging technology, computers and internet accounts to address the criminal misuse of 1st Amendment protected items and actions. . .  why do firearms get such special dispensation?  How can severe restrictions or a gun-ban be anything but prior restraint upon the exercise of a protected right?  

I realize that the common feeling held by those on the left is that our rights exist on a sliding scale, where the level of protection is entirely based on the value assigned to the right.  The, "well nobody ever killed anyone with words" is evidence of that as are the "the to society cost is too high for you to have a gun" emotional arguments. Fortunately, that is not how SCOTUS views it or decides a case before it . . . 

• As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion.... To view a particular provision of the Bill of Rights with disfavor inevitably results in a constricted application of it. This is to disrespect the Constitution. -- Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, (1956)

The following people are forbidden by federal law to possess any firearm or ammunition. A person who:

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an
alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his
or her citizenship;

(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from
harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child
of such intimate partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a
firearm.

Additionally, a person who is under indictment or information for
a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year
cannot lawfully receive a firearm.

All of these disablements have been reviewed and held as Constitutional by federal courts as legitimate penalties after due process. I don't have any problem with any of them and would not consider any to be in opposition to the 2nd Amendment or PA Art I, §21 (well, maybe #9 can be compromised, but just for wife beating cops, ------- wait, sorry, nevermind, that's already been "fixed").